Posted on 04/27/2019 8:37:27 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The pool of Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 is not just the largest in political history but also the most diverse. The impressive array of women and minorities follows the first female Democratic presidential nominee in 2016. That followed two successful nominations and election of an African American as president. That is something in which every American can take pride, and it should inspire even greater efforts to draw more women and minorities into politics.
However, this election has seen how calls for diversity can easily become calls for discrimination. Four presidential candidates have indicated they will only consider women for vice president, while other leaders have proclaimed that women govern differently than men. What is most striking about such pledges is that they would result in a federal prosecution if the candidates were running even a small business or agency. Instead, they seek to run the country on a pledge not to consider men regardless of their qualifications. It presents an interesting conflict between our legal and political values in the use of race and gender as a criteria for selection.
Representative Eric Swalwell of California recently made his pledge after declaring, “Spoiler alert: I’m a white man.” He asked voters to look beyond his race and gender but assured them that he would only consider a woman as his running mate. It was a curious pitch in which Swalwell insisted he does not think the identity of a person should “hold them back” yet pledged to categorically deny other men the opportunity to be his vice president. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey also promised not to consider any man to be his running mate. To the rapturous applause of the audience, Booker declared; “I will have a woman running mate. To me it is really clear that we do that.” Such clarity has come from a variety of liberal figures emboldened by rising rhetoric that dismisses white and male candidates.
On “The View,” host Joy Reid confronted Swalwell with a question that, if reversed, would be denounced as blatant racism and sexism. She asked, “Why does the field need yet another, to be blunt, another white guy?” The premise of her question is that candidates are defined to a major degree by their gender. The “white guys” are portrayed as largely redundant or possessing the same defining element for Reid. That view is being repeated like a mantra in this campaign.
Hillary Clinton told a thrilled audience that women govern differently due to their gender and pointed to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, after a mass shooting, “showed the heart not only of a leader but of a mother.” Others have made the same statements that they would not only refuse to vote for a man but that women are better leaders. One activist claimed women are superior to men as leaders for such reasons as they “know how to spend and save money even when money is scarce.”
It seems the reference to gender is only worthy of condemnation when made by or about men, unless it is a negative statement about the flaws of male leaders. Consider a hypothetical in which a male politician is asked whether he thinks men govern differently and he said, “Of course. Men are fathers and look at problems differently. They must be strong and leaders.” That politician would be torn apart and accused of “dog whistling” other sexists in suggesting that women do not have those attributes. Women struggled for decades with men who claimed that gender was a determinative criteria and that women did not have the natural talents for leadership. It was a scurrilous lie perpetuated by deep seated prejudice.
Now, however, some are reintroducing this baseless criteria back into our politics in reverse. The pledge not to consider any man, regardless of his qualification, shows just how disconnected our politics have become from our principles. If Booker or Swalwell were heading a school or business, they would be defendants in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission action based on such a discriminatory pledge. In Baltimore, a school was sued and a settlement reached after school officials told the head softball coach that they would not renew his contract because of a “preference for female leadership.” The school apparently believed women coached differently.
In California, a restaurant was sued and a settlement reached over its alleged preference for female servers. Stuart Ishimaru, who at the time was acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, declared, “This case should remind corporate America that employment decisions must be based on merit and ability to do the job, not on gender stereotypes.” The fact is that pledges to not consider men are perfectly legal in choosing who will serve as your president or vice president but illegal in choosing who will serve a table.
Some will argue that, for generations, presidents have picked running mates based on their appeal geographically or politically. However, race and gender are immutable characteristics. For that reason, they are given the highest level of scrutiny in constitutional law. We have spent decades prosecuting and suing those who applied the same bias in business, sports, education, and indeed government. In other words, these candidates would head a government that would prosecute those who expressed a preference, let alone an exclusionary policy, based on race or gender.
Many in the media have praised Representative Al Green of Texas for a question he asked seven chief executives testifying before his committee. He asked, “If you believe that your likely successor will be a woman or a person of color, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?" Not one raised his hand and the media erupted with condemnation, despite the fact that federal law bars executives from seeking replacements from a particular race or gender, or to rule out a race or gender. If a company is following federal law, it is not supposed to have a predetermined expectation on such issues. It is supposed to give the job to the most qualified candidate.
Most of us celebrate the diversity in the coming election and support the efforts to encourage more women and minorities to seek positions of leadership. However, identity politics can easily mutate into identity prejudice when gender is being cited as an innate qualification or a threshold exclusion. If we truly want a president and vice president to reflect our nation, let us start with our shared values. The litmus test is leadership.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
They’re impressive??? Ya fooled me!!
Bigotry is okay when WE say it’s okay.
What happened to most qualified? By that standard we need an entirely new Demonrat slate since none are even qualified, much less “most qualified.”.
Most qualified is so white and racist! (Sarcasm at the max!)
“What happened to most qualified? By that standard we need an entirely new Demonrat slate since none are even qualified, much less “most qualified.”
Thanks for posting this reality. The rats keep excluding more voters/candidates each day.
I guess I’m the opposite...I think most (and I will say most as I realize there are a few who are not) but many women in offices let emotions rule them, can get extremely catty, clicky and can be complete B-word if someone doesn’t agree with them. Any place I have been a part of, where a man was the top dog, had a heck of a lot less drama. Everyone knew what was expected and there were no games. Now I know there are a few exceptions out there for this also (example Peter Stryzok LOL)
and YES I am a woman...but I would prefer a man as President AND Vice-President...and no I am not some mousy subservient wife. I am a strong woman and a wife.
Electing Peter Buttplug president would give a hole new meaning to the term “First “Man”.
They holler alla-time about DIVERSITY, but then they demand UNdiverse selections, DISCRIMINATING against the “Out Class” — which currently is white Christian males — and DISCRIMINATING in favor of the trendy privileged class of the hour.
...and none sees the hypocracy of it.
Even some white liberals are going to realize they’re no different in the eyes of these radical leftists than any conservative. The Democrats keep this crap up they’ll be lucky to get 20% of the White vote going forward.
The Democrats have demanded the right to practice racism since they owned slaves. This is nothing new.
If Trump appears certain to win in 2020, the Dems will likely chose who they want for 2024 as their 2020 VP pick.
Time to go reverse Alinsky on the Rats, make them hold up to their standards.
Something to be proud of, why? Thieves and liars should not be proud.
uh ............we want you to govern with your head up your a## while we beat you like a baby seal with spiked clubs ............ok
The only appropriate response to a comment like that is "You're certainly free to run as well."
-PJ
You said “a hole”...
Are whites still the majority in the United States?
Use more bolded text next time so it is easier to read and not skippable
“The pool of Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 is not just the largest in political history but also the most diverse.”
Why it’s almost like a clown circus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.